No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

I've posted an article and photos of a most unusual George VI Commemorative basket that I acquired last week. It's unusual (and rare, IMHO) in that it is in marigold Carnival. I also have its "twin" in clear flint glass.

In our collection we have several other commemoratives, some with factory trademarks etc., but I have not been able to find (with certainty) the maker of this item. Does anyone know the maker for certain?

On another point, I'd be grateful to hear any opinions on how the item was made (in terms of its mould). Could it have been pressed upside-down?

Glen - An intriguing production problem. My first reaction is that I am not surprised that it is rare - it must have been a swine to make and I should imagine that, whoever made it, they might well have given it up as uneconomic after making a few.

If you are certain that the handle wasn't applied later (and that in itself would have been most unusual in a pressing) then upside down might have been the answer. I can't make out from the picture how deep the "foot" is - there would have to be some depth there to press it from that side. The lack of applied colour on the handle is also a puzzle. Is there a sharp line where the colour stops or is it fuzzy?

Short of having it in my hands I am rather at a loss beyond the above.

Adam - the handle is definitely not applied. It is moulded in, and the mould line is visible from the edge of the bowl, to the handle (about half an inch), and then all the way along the handle, both on the topside and on the underside.

The other obvious mould line is all around the circumference of the bowl, on the exterior side (bottom of the bowl).

The handle is clear - I think intentionally so - but as the iridescent spray was applied, after pressing, you can see that the spray did in fact go up the handle a bit.

My only guess is that it was made upside down. If so, the handle would be formed by two hinged sides of the mould coming together, and the plunger had the actual design on it (basically punch work). The plunger would have had to be an inverted bowl shape, and when it was pulled down, this forced the hot metal down onto the handle shape.

We have Davidson's pearline baskets that are just the same - mould seams along the handle (upper side & underneath), and around the basket underside circumference.

I spent some time considering this thorny problem several years ago and eventually worked it out.

What you must remember is that Greener, Davidson and Sowerby were masters of modifying what came out of the mould. In particular it is difficult to find any examples of Davidson cloud glass that have not been modified in some way post-moulding. For example the 34 pattern comprised everything from a low bowl with a recurved rim, through deep bowls, vases, to a lamp base - all from the same mould!

The 279 "Column" vase has a mould join about 90% of the way up the vase along the top of the nine side panels. So the plain rim was moulded by the plunger, not the three side sections. To extract it from the mould the rim had to be vertical and tapered. The vase would have been pushed onto a conical former to obtain the standard 279 shape, and on to a trough shaped former to obtain the 279D shape.

Back to your basket. Had the basket been moulded as a bowl shape, the two sides of the mould would have had to been lifted out, not pulled apart sideways. The underside of the top of the handle would have been wedge-shaped to match this angle. But the underside of the top of the handle is rounded, not wedge shaped. So the two sides of the mould must have been pulled directly apart, not at an angle. Hence the bowl must have been flat. QED.

The creation of the round or wavy bowl shape must have been post moulding, quickly done while the glass was still plastic. Presumably the basket was pushed or just dropped into an appropriate wavy or plain bowl-shaped former. You can see the evidence for this as there is always a depression on the outside opposite the inside of the handle, where the thicker glass of the handle resisted the change and pulled the glass away from the former.

Supreme masters of this technique were PV and MW, back in the Victorian era. Just look at Thompson, p50, the cruet bottle on the right. The bottle is pressed glass. It must have left the mould with a long, slightly thinning tubular extension to provide enough metal to work into the neck and rim. The shoulder panels are cut. The stopper was completely hand made and cut. Fabulous! I have such a cruet set in stock and a pickle jar from each glassworks. They are simply mindblowing!

I await Adam's comments with some trepidation.

Bernard C.

Logged

Happy New Year to All Glass Makers, Historians, Dealers, and Collectors

I think you may have solved an attribution problem that has been in the air for many years.

C20 royal souvenirs were made by all four - including Bagley. Bagley's range is illustrated in the CD (the E VIII photo). Greener/Jobling made the plates attributed to Bagley by Parsons and Bowey - earlier C19 examples carry the Greener lion - including the Knottingley Royal visit plate; and also the seaweed plates. Davidson's contributions are well documented on http://www.cloudglass.com Only Sowerby remains.

We have been looking for a home for the raised lozenge handled baskets. Sowerby has always been a front runner. I think you have gone a long way to proving the case in favour of Sowerby. It's good enough for me.

Back to the Royal visit. I cannot leave such a statement unjustified. I think Jobling just helped out Bagley's with this plate. They had a very flexible mould that could easily be changed to suit; already with the outer part changed for the Coronation a few months earlier. Greener/Jobling had a track record of good relations with the other NE glassworks, particularly as they supplied much of their raw materials. The price for this favour? Probably not money - something far more valuable. One or two pairs of tickets for the Royal table for lunch - beyond price! If a guest list for the Royal visit exists I lay odds on it including one or more Jobling directors and their wives. If it doesn't then it must have been a more normal paid for order.

Regards, Bernard C.

Logged

Happy New Year to All Glass Makers, Historians, Dealers, and Collectors

Glen - Yes, I can see that upside down might be the only possible way, but I would still like an indication of the depth of the "foot" or rim around the bottom (top as pressed!). This is getting a bit like modern bottle making where the bit made first is still called the "finish" as that is how it was with hand made bottles!

Bernard - Yes the wavy effect is obviously done post-pressing. I will take an aspirin and then continue getting my head around the rest of your description. I am intrigued by your comment re Jobling supplying the others with material. What was it? In my time if I ran short of anything (not often - honestly!) I would borrow some from friends in one of the other factories. That would either be returned as material or paid for depending on the wishes of the lender. Certainly no regular supply of any sort from anyone. I could still just about manage from memory the names of all Sowerby's suppliers - how's that for useless information?

I was intrigued by your statement 'Greener/Jobling had a track record of good relations with the other NE glassworks, particularly as they supplied much of their raw materials'. I wonder where you got this information from? What raw materials did they supply?

On a different tack. For the Edward VIII/ George VI, Sowerby made ashtray(s), a half pint mug and for Edward VIII a bust. Some of the Edward VIII articles do survive - we have an ashtray and a Mug. The Pottery Gazette did some pictures of various commemorative wares from various companies including Sowerby (but not Davidson).

Bernard, Adam, Chris - many, many thanks for your interesting responses. There's much to ponder over - and many things I want to mull through and discuss with Steve (who is away on business). I'll post a message when I've chatted it all through with him, as he's much better on "moulds" etc than I am.